Kinship -> OG Kinship (economical proposal!)

[yanik]

One thing for sure: it creates a much more interesting KIN gameplay.

For example you can accumulate kinship during bad times and farm during summer. Or accumulate KIN if you want to craft more rare (myth, godlike) items in a future

For people who want more higher alchemica inflow reduction: this is not simple reduction, but update on KIN teconomy now we understand farming better. It will change alchemica dynamics, and that what is needed, not big and sudden fix

It got a lot of support so I will also prepare a DAO proposal as alternative to a current economical proposals. The model must be created to show to others how it will work

[HARDKOR]

Get it ser! See you at the meeting? This is the big brain gamified hard choice solution we deserve.

[gbgggggggb]

i think it is a great idea

[yanik]

additionally, to save gas we can add one week buffer (-85% channeling fees) by adding a possibility to spend not -4 kin but up to -28 and make channeling amount scale accordingly

// basically just using 7 shots at once,
// should also increase community productivity

[reset]

I don’t know how likely but isn’t there a possibility this sigprop will pass along with one of the following:

a) AGIP49 - double spillover rate
b) AGIP49 Replacement - 1 Channelling per Week

So double reduction? Just wondering.

Example (current top 2 VP on this sigprop as of writing):

[yanik]

these are 3 competing proposal, not clear how to resolve such collision
I think only 1 must take effect and the therefore 1 author’s reputation and economical senses would be tested

[CryptoGreen]

If this passes, what do you think it will do to Gotchi rentals and possibly for scholars? Will it be likely that gotchi owners stop renting b/c they don’t want their gotchis to lose 4kinship per channel especially if they only get % of a channel? Or would it be likely that scholars lose out b/c guilds/owners don’t want to lose kinship? What do you guys think what will happen?

[reset]

Some possible scenario for rentals

0. Stop renting out partial of gotchis owned i.e. high ranked gotchis for RF. No more high kinship gotchis in rental market

1. Rent out every other day or rotate between 2 set of gotchis resulting in 50% reduction.

2. Gotchis hit new floor. Some player exit. Other acquire more to maintain their current issuance individually. Said individuals might or might not be renting it out the gotchis. So result effect on number of available rentals is inconclusive

3. No more long term rentals.

4. Pass along with Mark’s proposal which result in double reduction. Making most aaltar below level 7 not profitable for rentals

a) resulting in extra humbles w/ lower level aatlar listed on baazaar.

or

b) lower level aaltar upgrade to level 7 or higher resulting in temp sink due to mass upgrade (However, new level 7 spillover is the same as old spillover of level 3. So even if they upgrade there will be net reduction unless if you don’t want to sleep and take it up to L8/L9 which depending on your aaltar’s previous level result in +/- issuance individually)

5. alch price goes up resulting in less net loss usdc wise for dumpers

tbh. No crystal ball. Your guess is as good as mine

[CryptoGreen]

thanks for the reply, also if we were to reduce kinship by 4 for every channel that doesn’t give much utility for newborn gotchis. Like who will buy gotchi portals unless they go down to like 200 ghst per portal if when born it only has 50 kinship? That is like 12 days worth of channeling if he/she doesn’t pet gotchi. If this proposal is to pass then we likely would have to propose newborn gotchis to get somewhere between 100-250 kinship when born. Don’t you think so? I do think we need to pass more game type of kinship into ecoystem that is for sure. The ability to level up in rarity farming through kinship potions from gameplay. I also think if we do Yanik’s proposal we should get rid of petting per day and have them airdrop gotchis every month like 60 kinship per gotchi to save users costs once more kinship gamifying enters gotchi ecoystem.

[reset]

Your right. There should be no need for someone to go portal since you can buy a 1100 kin for like 500 ghst which is same range as a portal and most 1100 kin are actually H1

Unless your rolling for BRS

[Zete1988]

We need more Players in the Gotchiverse. Whats about Minigames and the Spillover Fun in the Game? More Events and Fun. Only around 35Players on Workdays. If we change the Kinship, i think more small Fishes will sell there Aavegotchis. Alchemica Prices will fall further…(some words from a small fish)…

Better Way, to get max. 1Kinship per Day.

But thats all my Opinion, have a nice day frens.

[yanik]

https://vote.aavegotchi.com/#/proposal/0xfb3766f05a6990514c618db06c2a74d8fd36298694740799e2dd23424a297115

AGIP-53 is on!
Please support

[Dake]

When will the deduction of intimacy begin after AGIP 53 is passed? Many people’s gotchi has just finished lending and cannot be recovered in time？
Will a buffer be given when? Let those masters who don’t want to channelize take back their gotchi and start the project again？

[GotchiLove]

4 gas txns to increase KIN (over 2 days)
1 gas txn to channel and decrease KIN by 4

proposed potential solution to excessive gas spending:

Could there be a channeler mode for Gotchis knowing they are commited to channeling?
a. incapable of increasing KINSHIP
b. if gotchi channels every other day KINSHIP remains the same
c. if gotchis channels every day KINSHIP drops 2 points everyday

[HARDKOR]

Why cant we modify petting to be something a contract updates twice a day, as long as gotchi has taken an action. Signing in to verse, petting, equipping… all these put you on the list.

This leaves competitive petting open, moves 99% of petting expense onto one contract and a query thats run 2x a day.

This increases available liquidity market wide, reduces gas extraction, ends the downward pressure of staking to pay for gas
(Some will still sell, but many will build or buy or compound)

[SlickBB]

Summary

It’s been a while since we’ve seen a coreprop as tight as AGIP-53 and even though the Vaults final vote was the deciding factor it was plain to see that the remaining DAO vote was also close at 60/40 even before the vault vote came in.

This indicates to me that burning kinship in exchange for channeling was a great idea but that there are reservations the community still has such as:

• -4 kinship per channel being too aggressive to start with - there is potentially far reaching side effects not yet fully understood if implemented at -4 rate,
• Pixelcrafts dev time is sacred - we don’t want to pressure PC into rushing out tokenomic altering mechanisms such as this when there are great battles and PVP that we would much rather see them working on for now,
• AGIP-49 only recently passed - the economic effects of this prop are arguably still not yet fully realized,
• There is no way to improve kinship other than petting and expensive kinship potions right now

Kinship Burn Updated Proposal

Kinship has the potential to be one of the most interesting and addictive on-chain game mechanics our gotchis have available. I would like to re-submit Yaniks proposal but with less aggressive kinship burn rate options:

• Option 1: Burn -2 kinship per channel
• Option 2: Burn -1 kinship per channel
• Option 3: Leave as-is

Option 1 would allow players to maintain their current gotchi kinship level and still channel as per normal.

Option 2 would allow players to increase gotchi kinship (albeit slower than non-channelers) and still channel as per normal

Please note: This proposal is less about providing a solution to our alchemica inflation and more about opening our protocol up to new ways of playing with kinship . The actual rate of kinship burn could be changed via future DAO votes.

End Goals & Benefits

Pixelcraft have previously hinted that kinship adjustment could be a future function implemented by whitelisted 3rd party applications. Implementing a small kinship burn mechanic starting with the gotchiverse channeling system opens the doors to this kind of mechanic.

But why would we want to allow kinship adjustment outside petting and existing potions? Because there are so many interesting interactions that it could generate! For example:

• It makes fantastic lore sense that if we do something to our gotchis that they don’t like that their kinship should decrease. e.g:
  • petting neglect,
  • sending them into a dungeon unarmed,
  • sending them naked to a gotchiverse dress up event,
  • expending their energy channeling alchemica from the heavens
• Conversely, it also makes fantastic lore sense that if we do something our gotchis like their kinship should increase. e.g:
  • Petting (whether manual or automated!)
  • Feeding them a kinship potion
  • Sending them to a massage parlour (but maybe over-pampering them could lose kinship!?)
  • Sending them on a date with a compatible gotchi!

All these interactions are how I foresee turning our beloved gotchis into more than just yield generators. If it takes a huge amount of gamified effort to keep gotchis’ kinship high, then imagine how much more desirable they will be for new and old community members alike when they’ve been well loved.

Potential Risks or Unintended Consequences

• We use up too much Pixelcraft bandwidth
• Future rogue 3rd party whitelisted kinship adjustment operators could have bad intentions (these would have to be heavily vetted outside the Gotchiverse),

Timeline

This updated proposal is more about gauging the DAO’s position on kinship adjustment mechanics rather than trying to fix any current issues (e.g. tokenomics). As such, implementation of this proposal would be at the complete discretion of Pixelcraft as they see fit.

Summary

So what do you think? Is this a more conservative version of AGIP 53 worth exploring to unleash the addictive gameplay mechanic that could be kinship?

• Yes - Let’s raise this revised Sigprop
• No - Let’s leave the kinship mechanic alone for now

[CryptoGotchi]

I’m a big supporter of yanik’s proposal. The fact that you’d drain KIN if you decide to channel every day is one of the main mechanics of the proposal. If you want to maintain you KIN, you need to pace yourself and only channel every other day. If you still want to increase you KIN, you’d have to pace yourself even more.
None of your options would provide for such a mechanic, so I’d rather see this put on hold for now than to implement a burn that is less than 3 KIN / channel. Changing the amount of KIN that is burned later on would be very difficult (from a governance perspective) any many people would rightfully complain that they can’t make decisions when everything is changing all the time.

@SlickBB

We use up too much Pixelcraft bandwidth

Can we please stop with these types of speculations? We know nothing about Pixelcraft’s bandwidth, and they made it more than clear that they feel that this is none of the DAOs business either. What we do know is that they receive 150k DAI / month from the DAO to develop the Aavegotchi protocol. Implementing a KIN burn would be a development on the Aavegotchi protocol. So there shouldn’t be any problem with that.

[SlickBB]

@CryptoGotchi

None of your options would provide for such a mechanic, so I’d rather see this put on hold for now than to implement a burn that is less than 3 KIN / channel.

I can add a -3 kinship option if you like?

@CryptoGotchi

We know nothing about Pixelcraft’s bandwidth, and they made it more than clear that they feel that this is none of the DAOs business either.

Sorry I have seen this as a concern (whether legitimate or not) from some community members so thought it was worth mentioning.

@CryptoGotchi

Changing the amount of KIN that is burned later on would be very difficult (from a governance perspective)

Can you elaborate on this? Once the mechanic is implemented why would it be difficult to tweak? If we don’t implement now then what conditions do we need to see to get it implemented at a later date? And what’s to stop people complaining when we make a larger change later?

[fifoooo]

Thanks @SlickBB for reopening a thread on that AGIP with an open mind and new ideas.
But I have to say I tend to agree with @CryptoGotchi on that one. To have a KIN burn on channeling that is superior than kinship earned by petting on the same period is a requirement for me (so -3 is minimal).

Reason is simple, you just don’t want people to be able to channel all days and extract more and more value out of it. Plus KIN cannot skyrocket for free forever.

If AGIP 53 had been implemented from day 1 , the citaadel would be very different today, and alch price actions would also be different.

I will vote yes for any amount KIN burn amount on channeling. But i think -3 is the best shot as recent past showed us -4 can’t make it.

[CryptoGotchi]

@SlickBB

I can add a -3 kinship option if you like?

If you want, but I believe it’s futile. Adding options would just split the “for”-vote, and on top of that raise the required vote differential. The vote is already very close, so a higher vote differential would likely kill any effort anyway.

@SlickBB

Can you elaborate on this? Once the mechanic is implemented why would it be difficult to tweak?

You’re already planning on providing 3 or 4 options on this. Whatever amount wins, the people who voted for it probably had their reasons. So changing whatever amount won, would require changing peoples minds, which is difficult. On top of that, any change or adjustment of an existing mechanic messes with peoples bags and strategies, and adds to their frustration: “Why can’t I count on anything in this DAO? Always changes, nerfs, etc.”. Once something is voted on, it starts to cement itself in the minds and strategies of people, and even the best arguments for change will fall on deaf ears.

@SlickBB

If we don’t implement now then what conditions do we need to see to get it implemented at a later date?

We should start with providing the infra around it:

Proposal 1: Add a kinshipBurnApproval() and burnKinship() function to the Aavegotchi diamond. This would enable any contract to burn your Gotchi’s KIN, but only AFTER you’ve approved it. This would implement the mechanic and make people feel safe about it, because it requires approval.

Proposal 2: Add kin burn permissions to lending listings. People need to be able to lend out their Gotchis while feeling safe that there is nothing the borrower could do that would burn KIN.

Only after those two have passed should we get back to the discussion of KIN burn for channeling. And that discussion needs to include changes to the channeling formula, to incentivize channeling with high KIN Gotchis. See:

Kinship -> OG Kinship (economical proposal!)

What do think about adding a new formula for the base-rate to this proposal to achieve both goals? I have no time atm to make a full model, but a first suggestion (merely a starting point) would be something like this: [equaimage] where m is your multiplier for alch issuance m_min is the minimum multiplier f_r is the reduction factor Depending on the values you choose for m_min and f_r, you can make sure you get the immediate overall reduction in issuance that you’re looking for, while a…

If we don’t get rid of the square root, there is little incentive for high Kinshipors to channel. But we want them to channel to spice up the Kinship leaderboard.
On top of that, the people asking for less KIN burn (e.g. 2 KIN, or 1 KIN) because it took them so long to get to 1k KIN could be convinced more easily if we tweak the system on the reward side of things. They might be ok with 3 or 4 KIN if they know, they’d get more Alch in return. So combining the discussions / proposals for “KIN burn for channeling” and “Revising channeling formula” will create less uncertainty and thus a higher chance of success.